General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhat about Trayvon's right to stand his ground? Finally, CNN asks the right question.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/11/opinion/francis-zimmerman-trial/index.htmlSNIP
The question that has not surfaced in the courtroom -- the elephant in the room -- is this: Did Martin fear for his life after being followed and confronted by a stranger while going to the store to buy candy and a soft drink? Was he, Martin, justified in standing his ground and defending himself when this stranger, an apparent stalker, approached him in a threatening manner?
SNIP
Think about it: We're told over and over that if Zimmerman was afraid of Martin, according to Florida law, he had the right to put a bullet in the chamber of his concealed handgun, get out of his car after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher and follow and confront Martin and shoot him to death.
At the same time, we are told that Martin, who had far greater reason to fear Zimmerman, practically and for reasons of American history, did not have the right to confront his stalker, stand his ground and defend himself, including by using his fists. We are told that this was entirely unjustified and by doing so, Martin justified his own execution.
The phrases "stand your ground" and "self-defense" have been repeated endlessly by anchors, pundits, analysts and experts, but rarely applied to Martin.
How could this be? Why is this other question ignored? Surely it will come up as we approach the trial, I thought. But it hasn't. What's going on here? How can the Florida law apply only to Zimmerman and not to Martin?
SNIP
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JI7
(89,252 posts)is O'Mara going to be hired by CNN after the trial ?
what you say is the assumption that would be given to anyone who was not black . especially a young black male. there would be no question about it.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and shot him with it, there's no question he would have immediately been charged with murder.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)
DCBob
(24,689 posts)and person being attacked then has the right to defend him or herself. In this case it seems neither was the clear aggressor and they just simply got in a fight. I think in this case "stand your ground" makes no sense.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)despite the 911 operator telling him he shouldn't. I think it's pretty clear he was the aggressor.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)so for the defense to claim TM was the aggressor is ridiculous.
Blue Bike
(65 posts)It's not.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)He talked about punks and how they always get away. And he followed Trayvon around. And Trayvon had every much right to be there as Zimmerman.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)He meant business without cause.
Pelican
(1,156 posts)Maybe you plan on pistol whipping someone with it?
SleeplessinSoCal
(9,123 posts)we could get on to the next sensation.
Generic Brad
(14,275 posts)Because you cannot possible be serious suggesting that Zimmerman stalking Martin with a gun was not an act of aggression.
yardwork
(61,650 posts)I don't know what planet you live on, but if somebody was stalking me while holding a gun I would feel that they were being aggressive. I would be in fear for my life.
shedevil69taz
(512 posts)Presented during the trial GZ had his gun concealed from view and only drew it after being on the ground and being beaten. That being said I still hope they find him guilty of at least manslaughter. His actions directly lead to the events, and is my opinion that GZ was hoping to get put into a position where he could claim he felt his life was in danger.
proReality
(1,628 posts)George Zimmerman. 'Nuff said.
shedevil69taz
(512 posts)I am sure the prosecution would have presented it would they not?
carjackistan
(4 posts)I haven't watched the trial very closely, so I have no idea if it came up earlier, but it did come up during the state's rebuttal. Guy said Zimmerman couldn't have gotten to the gun as he claims because Trayvon's legs covered Zimmerman's waist. He called it "a physical impossibility."
shedevil69taz
(512 posts)to see exactly what position their bodies were in, and where GZ had his gun concealed.
yardwork
(61,650 posts)Zimmerman claimed that Martin had him on his back, pounding his head into the sidewalk. Zimmerman also told the police that his gun was behind his back under his waistband.
Now, please explain to me how you could retrieve your gun from a holster over your right butt if you are on your back having your head pounded into a sidewalk. Go ahead, lie down. Put a gun under your pants above your right butt cheek. Pretend there is a seventeen year old kid on top of you, pounding your head "20 or 30" times into the ground.
Now, please pull out that gun. But first, show me how the seventeen year old "grabs the gun two or three times."
Both of Zimmerman's statements about what happened are physical impossibilities. He could not have drawn his gun in that situation. And Martin, who was right-handed, could not have grabbed Zimmerman's gun either.
Therefore, the logical conclusion (since we know that the gun was in fact drawn since it was used to kill Martin) was that the gun was in Zimmerman's hand all the time. Not hidden in his holster.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Zimmerman was trained in mixed martial arts and a security professional who was much older and larger than Martin. Martin did nothing to provoke Zimmerman - Zimmerman spotted Martin from a distance and chased him down, forcing a confrontation. THAT IS AGGRESSION.
Without Zimmerman's aggressive actions there would have been NO confrontation, and Martin would still be alive.
bluesbassman
(19,374 posts)Their mission was to "observe and report" not "stake out and engage", which is exactly what GZ did. The moment he stepped out of his vehicle he became the aggressor, and any confrontation that resulted was his responsibility.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)or your teenage daughter is stalked by someone with a gun, then maybe I'll listen to you.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 01:45 AM - Edit history (1)
Credit to Sid for making this.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I swear everyone posting tonight has joined in the last 7 days and has a post count under 100.
JimboBillyBubbaBob
(1,389 posts).....not true! I joined years ago but don't have a compulsive need to comment on everything. Perhaps others are in the same mindset.
pauljulian
(45 posts)Since at least 2006... just seldom comment. I truly enjoy the articles, the humor, and the points of view... I just save my compulsive commenting for other blogs...
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Excellent!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)All Zimmerman had to do was a minute or two for the police to arrive and Trayvon would be alive today and we would, most likely never heard of him, and Zimmerman would be going on with his life. But he chose to stalk someone for no apparent reason, disobeying the order to stay in his truck, scaring a kid who had no idea why he was being followed, and killed him.
A precious life was lost for no reason whatsoever.
How often do people with guns decide to follow kids walking along the street? I've never known anyone who did that, especially after being told not to do so.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)This isn't a video game. This is real life.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)
Sivafae
(480 posts)The whole purpose of calling 911 is that you believe there to be an emergency that requires immediate response. Thus, you believe that you are in danger. If you are in danger, why bother following the guy? Hasn't anyone seen a horror movie?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)eom
KansDem
(28,498 posts)...I'll pull my gun and shoot you.
Then I'll claim SYG.
No problem.
Isn't that the way it works?: Whoever is left standing claims SYG?
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation, which is an aggressive act, and did so while carrying.
Every single precept of any CC safety course ever taught was violated by Zimmerman.
Zimmerman was hunting.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)datasuspect
(26,591 posts)azurnoir
(45,850 posts)when in fact Zimmerman was actively hunting Trayvon, with full intent of using his weapon
tiredtoo
(2,949 posts)in your car and not follow the guy by the 911 dispatcher could or should be considered aggressive behavior.
Rex
(65,616 posts)with the rest of us? So you normally follow people around with a gun? Yikes.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)And you say Trayvon had no right to feel threatened?
Zimmerman created this situation, because I truly think he wanted to be the big hero, and finally show these "punks" their place. Zimmerman had no right to assume that Trayvon had no business there; had no right confronting him without any other reason other than for Trayvon's skin color; had no right to pull a gun and escalate the situation.
What would have happened had he just backed off and waited for the cops? Trayvon would still be alive, for one.
I'll add my voice to the chorus of those who are fucking sick and tired of the Zimmerman apologists on this board. Done with it.
Apophis
(1,407 posts)thesquanderer
(11,990 posts)where it's clear who is supposed to be there and who is not.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)This was a fight neither was particulary looking for... it just developed. Nothing to do with standing your ground.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)I don't know why only the guy with the gun gets to defend himself. Makes no sense! People act like it was perfectly reasonable for Zimmerman to call the cops on Trayvon, follow him and eventually shoot him even though they have no idea what happened behind those buildings. None! Just the word of the shooter who knew self-defense laws the whole time.
I'm sick of hearing how old and fat Zimmerman is because that's just bullshit too. He might not have been able to fight but he didn't need to, he had a gun! I believe he tried to stop Trayvon for the cops either by physical force or by pulling his gun and Trayvon fought for his life. Sadly there are no witnesses to what really happened besides a killer.
starroute
(12,977 posts)He's pudged up a lot, but at the time of the shooting he was 29 years old and weighed 200 pounds, and he'd been working out three times a week. He was perfectly able to fight, and the claim that Trayvon somehow knocked him down with a single punch and then jumped on him is ludicrous.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)To make him look helpless. He'll get three meals a day in prison, but he won't like what they feed him.
Vasmosn
(29 posts)...the fact that Zimmerman had no injuries to his hands. No defensive scratches, bruises or anything. Which says to me that he didn't even try to fight back or defend himself, he just went for his gun. And 20 to 30 times his head was smacked against concrete? Either Trayvon was a weakling who was not to be feared no matter what or Zimmerman is lying. If I smack you head against the concrete ONE time when I feel I'm fighting for my life, you will be near unconscious. 20 or 30 you would be long dead or at least unable to grab and fire a gun......but it's not like the man had a record of having lied or anything right? Poor Rachel Jeantel was branded a liar basically because she was uneducated but Zimmerman is believed even though he lied in connection to this case over bail. But we believe him. Or those that counted did.
Cha
(297,323 posts)was he not against his aggressor?
thanks pnwmom
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Everyone's talking about how scary this skinny teenage kid must have seemed, but what about Zimmerman following him around at night? Trayvon must have been really and truly scared. And he was obviously right to be scared. 
My heart aches for him so often as I read about/watch this trial.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)
Kahuna
(27,311 posts)That was Trayvon's right, not zimmerman's.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)...that even this article from a source that is actively following the trial says erroneous shit like "get out of his car after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher".
Zimmerman was already out of his car when the dispatcher told him they didn't need him to follow. That's not opinion, or conjecture. It's the simple verifiable truth.
That's not to say that Zimmerman stopped following when he was told they didn't need him to do that, but it's just a plain out and out falsehood to say that the dispatcher told him to stay in his car.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)What difference does it really make whether he was in or out of his car when the 911 operator told him that? The point is he should have stopped following Zimmerman. Period.
Captain Stern
(2,201 posts)I just feel that there's so much about this case we can't be sure about, that we should at least get the stuff we can be sure about right.
Personally, I don't think it really matters all that much when the dispatcher told Zimmerman they didn't need him to follow. I don't think a whole lot of what happened before Martin and Zimmerman encountered each other is going to matter at all.
lenegal
(265 posts)to which he replied yes. Since the dispatchers are unable to give explicit directions for fear of lawsuit, GZ was told, "You don't need to do that."
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Neither of them had a right to strike the other first. So who struck whom first? Because that is the first Florida law that is broken.
Martin is dead and Zimmerman's testimony, whether he is telling the truth or lying, is not objective. That leaves:
-Witness testimony: Goode's testimony places Martin on top of Zimmerman during the middle of the fight
-Police testimony: Two police investigators stated hat while there were inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story, which they stated was not unusual, the story as a whole remained consistent enough not to raise any unusable suspicion on their part. Serino's bluff, telling Zimmerman that they had video of the fight and Zimmerman's response of Oh Thank God, reinforces the police belief of a self defense claim
-Medical testimony indicates a possible closed fracture to the nose and lacerations to the back of the head. The prosecution never made a serious attempt to explain these wounds away.
-Physical evidence: Martin's pants, wet from the knees down, match the kneeling position that Goode saw and that the prosecution demonstrated, placing Martin on top. Zimmerman's clothes were wet on the back, again matching Goode's testimony and the prosecution's demonstration
-Testimony of the expert witnesses, the prosecution had no outside expert witnesses testify for them. The defense's expert witnesses included a world renowned forensic pathologist and a long time use of force trainer for law enforcement, the testimony of both corroborated the Defense's story.
I will note that from the time the shot was fired 17:16:55 to when the first officer reported he was on scene 17:17:40 is less then a minute.
Since the burden of proof is on the Prosecution, how do they PROVE that Zimmerman either attacked Martin first, threatened him with the gun or was not attacked and not in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm.
Based on the case the prosecution brought, I don't believe they reached the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt"
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)life and strike the other?
And that is where Zimmerman's failure to follow the instruction of the police telephone operator, his carrying a gun (unusual for a neighborhood watch volunteer) and the fact that the one witness to his case still cannot say who struck whom first. That Trayvon Martin was on top does not let us know what Zimmerman (who had a gun and knew it) did in fact.
Zimmerman's story about how and when he drew the gun is said by some to make no sense.
So, in this case, Zimmerman may get off, but if he does, then that will indicate a big flaw in the stand your ground laws. It will be apparent that if a person carrying a gun shoots first in a dark place, the person (here a minor) without a gun is basically just target practice.
That will cause a lot of people to think twice about stand your ground combined with open carry laws.
Because here, many believe that Zimmerman was not basically a "criminal." (Many think he is.) But even if he wasn't the result of the combination of stand your ground and open carry was that Zimmerman had a license to kill based merely on his subjective decision that Trayvon Martin who was unarmed and legally and properly in the subdivision posed some danger to him.
That should set off a loud discussion about having stand your gun laws combined with open carry.
Who picked the fight here? Well, that we don't know but based on Zimmerman's conversation with the police operator, he probably did. He did not want to let Trayvon Martin get away.
Did Zimmerman, in fact, approach Trayvon with his gun drawn? Did Zimmerman have his gun in his hand when Trayvon Martin allegedly attacked?
We shall see what the prosecutor says. He may point out discrepancies in Zimmerman's case that cause a guilty verdict. The defense attorneys look very worried, but I would bet on a manslaughter conviction if anything conviction at all because the prosecutor has to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I think that guilt of manslaughter is pretty clear to me. Zimmerman did not need to follow Trayvon Martin. The police were on their way.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)When is the prosecution closing argument?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)followed by the defense giving its whole closing argument ; followed by the prosecution giving the second half of its closing argument.
So they would have equal time, but the prosecution's would be before and after the defense. The whole thing is expected to go to the jury tomorrow.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)It would be a waste of time. The only opinions that count are those of the members of the jury. So I don't even want to have an opinion.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)I haven't watched most of the trial. Too aggravating.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)The prosecution has to prove Zimmerman struck, shoved or threatened Martin with the gun first beyond reasonable doubt to warrant Martin striking Zimmerman and I don't see that they have done so. The punch to the nose was NOT sufficient to reach the reasonable fear of the death or grave bodily harm threshold, however the striking of Zimmerman's head against the pavement would be.
Florida does not have open carry, which is defined as the firearm carried completely visible and without a covering garment. I disagree with your opinion that SYG and CCW gives a person a "license to kill" because it doesn't. Any use of force has to be in response to a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm, with reasonable being determined by the average person. I don't know anyone that is willing to risk the expense of criminal trial or a murder conviction unless they are afraid of being killed or seriously injured.
My personal opinion is that Zimmerman never intended to confront Martin, but that they bumped into each other when he was heading back to his truck and that iss when things turned to shit.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)if he did not intend to confront him?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)had every right to get out of that car and go up to Martin and try and talk to him.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)which makes his "fear" claim highly suspect, and it also suggests that he might have been the aggressor.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)based on what we know, not what we guess or think
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and caught up with me, I would have screamed and not waited for him to attack me.
As a woman, I probably would have kicked. Had I been a boy and a football player, I would have tackled the person who was so clearly following me.
I can understand from what I know about the facts that Trayvon would have thought that Zimmerman was a criminal, perhaps a sexual deviate.
What else would you think.
And I do not believe Zimmerman's story. It is just not how things work. Zimmerman stalked Trayvon in my view. Zimmerman may not have thought of it as stalking, but that is what it was. And why would Zimmerman have been afraid of Trayvon no matter what Trayvon did when Zimmerman knew all along that he had a gun, a loaded gun at his waist.
I'm surprised the gun did not go off and shoot Zimmerman in the leg or hip. How would that work?
Yes. If you carry a gun outside your home on the street (not hunting) on a dark night where there are not many people, in a state with stand your ground laws, it's like having a license to kill.
There have been a number of shootings in my area over the past year and a half. For the most part, they have occurred at night or in the evening on the street when almost no one was around. My state does not have stand your ground laws to when they catch the killer that is not an excuse. Virtually all these shootings were gang member against gang member. But who is to say, in a stand your ground state, even a gang member would have the right to plead stand your ground and get off. It's an insane law.
The limitations on self-defense laws in murder cases developed over many years and should not be set aside. They were developed because judges and populations saw that protecting people who do not have or carry guns from those who do is just. Those who have or carry guns have such an advantage in a confrontation or misunderstanding with one who does not have or carry a gun, that justice demands that the burden of keeping the peace be placed on one with a deadly weapon. The same principle obviously applies to a driver who kills a pedestrian. The car is a deadly weapon. That the pedestrian knocked on the hood of the car does not give the driver the right to plow into the pedestrian.
Had Zimmerman not been carrying a gun, he probably would not have followed Trayvon. That is my opinion.
We will probably see in this trial that stand your ground laws give too great an advantage to the killer. Already, when there are no witnesses, or the witnesses only saw part of a scuffle and shooting, the defendant has a huge advantage because the proof of guilt must be beyond a reasonable doubt. Stand your ground in addition to all the advantages that the legal system affords gun-toting defendants is not necessary. It is a license to kill.
If Zimmerman is not convicted, I think my opinion will be frequently voice by others.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)you should be charged and convicted of assault. You can not go around hitting people just because you are scared of them. They have to present a threat that the average person would consider it reasonable to use violence first.
Zimmerman's behavior did not meet the definition of stalking under Florida law
That gun, like most guns, is perfectly safe until the trigger is pulled
SYG laws state that you do not have a duty to retreat if you are attacked where you are legally entitled to be, it is not a "license to kill". SYG does not apply if you are committing a felony.
I've seen no major changes to self defense law that would increase crime, quite the opposite IMO the changes in the law have benefited the innocent. A person should not be forced to retreat and risk tripping or turning their back on the attacker.
The prosecution in a criminal case should ALWAYS have the burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
You are completely entitled to your view on whether Zimmerman is guilty or not.
I do not feel that the prosecution proved it's case and before I vote to send someone to jail for 20-30 years, the prosecution damn sure needs to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to me.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)It means that you are not on the jury.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)"I do not feel that the prosecution proved it's case and before I vote to send someone to jail for 20-30 years, the prosecution damn sure needs to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt to me."
That's the problem. In a case like this in which the person with the gun survives to tell his story either the story he recalls accurately or inaccurately or the story he wants to believe or simply the story he wants others to believe, it is almost impossible to find conclusive evidence of guilt.
That is why we do not want people walking our streets with guns on them unless they have a good reason to do so and a license that lets them know that the authorities know they have that specific gun.
Without witnesses other than the dead boy and the man with the gun, how can this case be proved either innocent or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
My theory is that Zimmerman approached Trayvon with gun drawn. Trayvon tackled Zimmerman. How else could Zimmerman have reached into his holster, drawn out his gun -- back toward his back and placed the gun in Trayvon Martin's chest to shoot. I think he had to have gun in his hand before anything else happened.
I think Zimmerman just left out part of the story. He was never seriously interrogated or cross-examined. He was always treated as though he was honest and innocent. I don't think he was either.
But -- even if Zimmerman gets off, he will make another mistake as OJ did and end up in trouble. I've seen his type before.
klook
(12,157 posts)Exactly. I agree with those who've said the prosecution may have sought a murder conviction, expecting manslaughter.
Zimmerman appears to have worked himself into a frenzy based on his fearful fantasy about what kind of person young Martin was, or what he might have done -- or might have been intent on doing.
BTW, I haven't followed this thing blow by blow, so I just noticed today that the jury is composed of five Caucasian women and one "Black or Hispanic" woman, according to CNN. I wonder, how many African-Americans were struck by the prosecution during jury selection?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But I wonder about Zimmerman. He does not seem very bright. I understand he got good grades in some of his law enforcement courses, but how much rational judgment he is capable of exercising, I really don't know. He just doesn't seem like the brightest kind of guy, just a dawdler who gets by. That is my impression.
Trayvon? Irrelevant because he was a kid. He was unarmed. The defense argues that he Trayvon Martin should have known better, but when I think of myself at 17?????? No. Trayvon Martin was still a child no matter what he did. He was still learning about life.
Zimmerman should have known better, but I don't think his mental age is what it should be. I don't think he is mentally disabled, but I just don't think he is very intelligent.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)"Had Zimmerman not been carrying a gun, he probably would not have followed Trayvon. That is my opinion."
But of course he had his gun. Whats a hunting trip without a gun?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Trayvon should have been able to protect himself even if it meant throwing the first punch (or more likely, he shoved him and Zimmerman fell.)
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)We can guess all we like, but unless Zimmerman struck or shoved Martin or threatened him with the gun, Martin had NO right under the law to hit Zimmerman.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)If Florida doesn't give Martin that right -- but gives Zimmerman the right to chase someone with a gun -- then Florida law is wrong.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and the facts of the matter are that Martin was 5'11" and 158 pounds and Zimmerman was 5'8" and 204 pounds that night. Zimmerman was hardly a much larger man.
Florida law also states that neither is allowed to strike the other first or escalate the fight to the point where serious injury becomes possible.
So for Martin to strike Zimmerman first, you have to prove that Zimmerman had the gun out, showed the gun and threatened to kill Martin.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)A youth of 17 wouldn't have the muscles of a man more than ten years older.
You are probably white so you might expect that 911 would help you in this situation. I'm not surprised that Trayvon didn't immediately think of that.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Martin should have easily been able to out run Zimmerman, a person described as "clinically obese" by the physician's assistant who saw him the following day. Since even the prosecution acknowledges Martin being on top in the fight, that would make Martin strong enough to be a danger to Zimmerman.
Maybe 911 wouldn't have worked, that doesn't mean you don't try it.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Nice try though.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Zimmerman fired the gun when Martin was on top of him?
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)chased Trayvon around the complex while carrying a gun, full of anger about how the punks were always able to get away.
He chased a kid with Skittles for several minutes, armed and angry. He caused this situation and he should be held responsible for the outcome.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Following a person and going up to him and trying to talk to him is NOT illegal in Florida
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 11:29 AM - Edit history (1)
when the defense asked her to.
It's up to the jury now to decide whether Zimmerman's actions were legal under Florida law. And they will have to decide whether Zimmerman "provoked" Martin into hitting him because if he did, then Zimmerman can't hide behind a self-defense claim.
If I were on the jury, I would say Martin was clearly provoked.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)He has said that he got out of the truck to find a street address for the police. That's all.
If he simply wanted to talk to Martin, he had a perfect opportunity when Martin was "a car length" (Z's words) away from the truck. What did Zimmerman say at that point?
Nothing.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)and what he should or should not have done, but in the case is going to be determine on what law was broken and who broke it and did the prosecution prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Serino: I don’t know how this is gonna help at this point but, had told this child that you were Neighborhood Watch and you were just wondering what the hell he was doing when he came up to your car? You probably wouldn’t be here right now. Did that, has that ever registered to you at all? I mean, I gotta try to get into your head somehow, and, and I guess that I answer to his family right now.
You claim repeatedly that Zimmerman was getting out of the car to talk to Martin. I'd like to know where you got that idea.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)What I said was that Zimmerman had every right to get out of the car, follow and approach Martin and talk to him. I did not say that is what Zimmerman did.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)Why don't you mention that? 
Why not discuss what he actually did do rather than what he had a theoretical right to do?
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)out of the truck and follow Martin.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)If it's just about Zimmerman getting out of his truck, why not simply say that he's within his rights to get out of the truck? You're on solid ground with that argument; it's been thoroughly pointed out that the dispatcher's advice did not constitute an order.
You add in this bit about Zimmerman having the right to try and talk to Martin when Z's own account shows that he never really had an interest in trying to talk to M. Why not say that Zimmerman had the right to get out of his truck to look for a street address, which is what he says he was doing? That's a substantial claim and, what's more, it has the benefit of comporting with the available evidence. By throwing speculation into the mix, you dilute your argument.
I wish Zimmerman had exercised his right to talk to Martin. As Investigator Serino pointed out, if Zimmerman had exercised that right when he was still inside his truck, none of this might have happened.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)I'll try a different approach.
Neither Martin or Zimmerman broke any law up until the first punch was thrown.
Many people here have claimed that Zimmerman broke the law prior to that first punch.
nyquil_man
(1,443 posts)What I don't get is why you feel the need to talk about Zimmerman having the right to do things he never did.
He had all sorts of rights on that evening. He had the right to hop onto a unicorn and ride around the neighborhood. But he didn't do it, so it's irrelevant.
He didn't try to talk to Trayvon Martin. Thus, it's irrelevant whether or not he had the right to do it.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Which is a pretty generous assumption, especially considering that we know Zimmerman was willing to shoot Trayvon point blank, after telling the operator he was sick of punks getting away.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)but the burden remains on the Prosecution to PROVE Zimmerman had the gun out.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)recklessly and caused the death by chasing a kid with Skittles around the complex and scaring the kid into fearing for HIS life. Everything that happened after that grew out of Zimmerman's decision to not listen to the 911 operator and to continue pursuing Trayvon.
If you were right, then the judge would have dismissed the charges. She has not.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)they do not normally do so when there is a death involved.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)then the judge would have dismissed it. It does happen.
Instead, the judge is leaving it up to the jury to decide if Zimmerman's actions were within the law.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)NO WAY
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)ZERO DOUBT!!!!!!!!
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)YOU have no proof
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)probably too skeered
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Skittles
(153,169 posts)
John2
(2,730 posts)you are trying to put it. The difference is one person profiled the other person and pursued that person as a suspect to a crime. Now this is a person claiming that he was the captain of community watch in his neighborhood. Regardless of the 911 operator telling him not to follow Martin, Zimmerman had been told that before as a person for community watch.
So the difference is Martin was walking home on his way from the store, until Zimmerman spotted him. You conveniently dismiss the intent and motives of both people. The only reason Zimmerman ever confronted Martin was because he followed him. So don't pretend Zimmerman intended to be at some place or point, until he saw Trayvon Martin. That is just making a justification for what Zimmerman did.
It clearly makes Zimmerman the aggressor, because if he had never spotted, falsely profiled, or pursued Martin, none of the events that followed would have ever occured. If Zimmerman had minded his own business, Trayvon would be alive today, and Zimmerman wouldn't be charged with murder.
And the one witness, you clearly dismiss, is the last person Trayvon talked to before Zimmerman killed him. That is the only witness, that testified to what was in Martin's mind and the start of the fight. Good or any other witness can't testify to that. Her cell phone documents that she was on the phone with Martin before he got murdered that night. So whatever was said, we know that part was true.
We know Trayvon showed some apprehension of Zimmerman that night and tried to lose him. We know Trayvon was on the cellphone before the confrontation, and was disconnected.
You know what doesn't fit between Good's testimony and Zimmerman's if you want to discount Jenteal. Zimmerman claimed it was too dark to see Martin jump him. He backed away from claiming Trayvon came out of the bushes, because the bushes were up next to the apartments, and not close to the side walk or grass. So in order for Trayvon to jump from the bushes, he would have to pratically be up near someone's apartment. So Zimmerman had to retreat from that lie.
Zimmer also claimed it was too dark and there were no lights in the area, which made it praticable for Trayvon to jump him, without being seen. That kind of puts a damper on Good's claim, that he could see that well from where he was standing. Not only this, Good claimed that he yelled to both Trayvon and Zimmerman to stop. Good's voice is never heard on any of the other 911 tapes.
Another problem with Good's testimony is Zimmerman claims he told Good directly to help him with Trayvon. Good never mentioned that. Good claims he watched awhile and then went to call 911 when he thought it was getting serious. That makes no sense whatsoever.
He claims that when he heard the shot while on the phone, he looked downstairs and saw the Black guy on the ground, but nothing about seeing Zimmerman.
That doesn't add up with the two female witnesses, that went out and saw Zimmerman on top of Martin.
It doesn't add up with the witness that took the photographs of Zimmerman. His testimony was that he witnessed Zimmerman walking towards him and then stooping.
There was supposedly two other witnesses, not shown by the prosecution or the defense, concerning a 14 year old boy and his mother. The mother allegedly accuse the police of trying to get her son to support Zimmerman's story.
So that brings you back to Good. At first Good gave the first story he claimed on the stand in the trial, but he back track on hearing Zimmerman calling help. Good claims he was only clarifying his story, but that is no different than Jenteal's claims. That is a double standard. I think Jenteal was telling the truth.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)She was not grandstanding or trying to make herself liked. She really did not want to be questioned. I tend to believe what she said because she has absolutely nothing to gain from lying.
Had Jenteal agreed with Zimmerman's story, she probably would not have had to go on the stand, and I think she would have liked that -- not having to testify.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)to PROVE Zimmerman attacked or threatened Martin first because following someone is not a crime in Florida.
The prosecution has failed to explain Zimmerman's injuries, they have failed to show or even present a theory about who struck whom first, which is VERY relevant. They have acknowledged, in front of the jury, that Martin was on top.
I do not find Rachel an especially credible witness, she and the prosecution have stated that she lied. Her deposition NEVER should have been taken in front of Martin's mother, it should have taken place in a neutral setting such as the prosecutor's office. I have a problem with her not trying to call Martin back, that is very odd behavior from someone who was texting Martin constantly and knew something was wrong.
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)but it IS a valid reason to invoke SYG when you're being followed by someone after dark and they won't quit following you.
Well, if you're white it is. In Florida you can't invoke SYG if you aren't white, no matter what the circumstances. The law doesn't explicitly state that, but it's pretty obvious from the cases SYG was invoked in. It doesn't work as a defense for non-whites, but works consistently as a defense for whites.
ETA: It can be a crime to follow someone in Florida:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) “Course of conduct” means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.
(c) “Credible threat” means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.
Or we could go with Florida's definition of assault:
784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)the burden of proof remains on the Prosecution to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was first the aggressor and that Zimmerman escalated the use of force
See sections a & b:
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041
ctaylors6
(693 posts)on the initial aggressor rule. The state asked for it to be included but the judge ruled against them. At least that's what I read in the news and saw when I read the final jury instructions that were posted on the court's website.
So the jury was instructed on the self-defense law by itself. Specifically:
"In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you
must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was
used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify
the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably
cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the
danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George
Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any
place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his
ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent
the commission of a forcible felony."
I have not had time to watch the trial, just read about it in the news. I assume the prosecution argued that Zimmerman assaulted or battered Martin first and therefore was engaged in unlawful activity as well as argued that because of their relative sizes and for other reasons. it was not reasonable for Zimmerman to use deadly force at the time he fired.
Edited to add: There was nothing I could find at all in the jury instructions about stalking. I'm very confused why so many people have brought that up.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)even if Zimmerman was the aggressor, which has not been proven, under Florida law
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041
he still has the right to use deadly force if a or b apply and I don't believe the prosecution has sufficiently proven that a or b do NOT apply.
As to the stalking part, many people here on DU have used the term stalking to describe their perception of Zimmerman getting out of his car and following Martin. Florida law has a specific definition of stalking and regardless of whether you believe or even like Zimmerman or not, his behavior did not meet that legal definition of stalking.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)for your reply. My reading of the jury instructions is that the judge declined to include any parts of 776.041, including a and b. Only the general self-defense provisions were included. I was very surprised.
Thanks also for the explanation about the stalking. I admittedly have followed the news on the trial only sporadically but what I'd read about Zimmerman's actions did not seem to fit into any legal definition of stalking I've come across. I thought maybe it was a FL law thing (not my jurisdiction), but it sounds like it's just the misunderstanding of legal vs dictionary terms.
onenote
(42,714 posts)The crime of stalking in Florida applies only to one who "willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another. While Zimmerman acted wilfully, whether he met the test of acting maliciously and repeatedly is far from clear. Typically, following a person one time is not considered actionable "stalking."
AmyStrange
(7,989 posts)-
what exactly was the "legitimate purpose" behind Zimmerman following TM? It might have been argued that it was legitimate if the dispatcher had not told him he didn't have to do it.
Just my opinion,
d
-
Even a lawyer's interpretation of the law can be wrong.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I do not find Rachel an especially credible witness, she and the prosecution have stated that she lied...."
If lying indicates a lack of credibility, then we may only presume you find Zimmerman lacking credibility as he lied about his attempt to launder money from his jail cell.
Unless of course you're simply holding one to a higher standard than the other. Which is my guess...
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)because it is essentially irrelevant. He either lied or he told the truth.
I relied mostly on the testimony of the police, medical professionals, expert witnesses and the physical evidence.
The police investigators never felt that his statements rose to the level of intentional lying and they stated that inconsistencies in statements is normal and that telling the story exactly the same each time is an indication of lying.
I find Zimmerman's wounds consistent with his story and the testimony of ALL THREE ME's and the physician's assistant stated that those injuries could have resulted in serious injury or death.
The prosecutors acknowledge that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and they failed to prove who started the physical altercation.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)a total humper
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)1) Zimmerman admits to shooting Martin.
2) He claims it was self defense, with no other proof on who started it than his own testimony.
3) Martin could have very well been defending himself when Goode saw the incident.
4) Goode's testimony is irrelevant if he didn't see how it started or ended.
5) Zimmerman's injuries don't matter if he was the initial aggressor.
This case comes down to Zimmerman's story. That is THE ONLY thing the jury should consider.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Z does not have to prove self-defense. The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self-defense.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)If so, then that is really fucked up.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Not "guilty until I prove my innocence." . That is the way our justice system has always worked. Do you really want to change it?
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)He's guilty of shooting Martin without anyone seeing the WHOLE incident. That's a fact.
The only LIVE person that knows everything that happened is Zimmerman.
hack89
(39,171 posts)justifiable homicide means exactly that - in the eyes of the law the shooter had a legal justification for shooting someone.
The state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z did not have a legally justifiable reason for shooting TM.
This case was always going to be hard to try precisely because of the lack of witnesses.
onenote
(42,714 posts)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Without the Presumption associated with Home Invasion, doesn't Z have to show his use of force was justified? He is the one being charged, HE needs to supply a defense.
Typically the shooter would be charged, and if it can be proven his acts were justifiable, then he has a good defense.
NY is like this.
In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in
sections 35.05 through 35.30, is a defense.
onenote
(42,714 posts)All a defendant has to do is to present evidence that, if true, would support a claim of self-defense. Once this "burden of production" is met (and the testimony that Martin was on top, that Zimmerman screamed, that Zimmerman's head showed evidence of hitting the sidewalk is undoubtedly sufficient to meet this very low threshold). After that, the burden falls entirely on the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. It can do that by convincing the jury not to believe the testimony put forth by the defense and/or by showing additional facts that would cause the jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not reasonably fear for his life, or that Zimmerman provoked the confronation (with provocation requiring an actual use of force or threat of force by Zimmerman, not merely following Trayvon or even demanding an explanation from Trayvon for why he was where he was or doing what he was doing).
Any suggestion to the jury that the defense bears a burden of proof with respect to the claim of self defense is reversible error in Florida.
On edit: Not every jurisdiction follows the Florida approach. For example, in Ohio, the accused has both the burden of production AND the burden of proof (by the preponderance of the evidence). Florida takes a completely different approach.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)Z has to provide a prima facia case of self defense - which means he does not have to prove self defense, merely provide facts from which a reasonable case for self defense can be made. The bar is deliberately a low one. The burden of proof to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self defense never shifts from the state to the defendant.
The State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Z did not act in self defense.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Something that appears to be missing in this case.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's story is untrue.
as to #5, even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, something not proven, it does not give Martin the right to escalate the fight to where Zimmerman would have a reasonable fear of death or grave bodily harm UNLESS you can PROVE that Zimmerman threaten to kill Martin or that Zimmerman drew or displayed the gun.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Unless you take Zimmerman's story as the only proof necessary.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Why did he assume that an innocent kid returning from buying candy was an "asshole" punk high on drugs. Simply, because he was one of those dangerous Black gangsters, who always wear Huddies and are out to rob innocent White folks. Does anyone believe that if he had seen a White kid in the same situation that he would have acted as he did. His irresponsible actions are directly the cause of this kid who was barely seventeen years old being killed. I am so damn sick of hearing that he was the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch organization I could throw up. Ever credible Neighborhood Watch Organization, including the one in his community, instructs that members should not be armed with any type of weapon, should only observe, never approach anyone and call the police if they a suspicious. Even if he is found innocent, I would suspect that his parents will bring a suit against him and the Neighborhood Organization.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)for $1 million less any attorney's fees. There has been some dispute as to the actual legal language here on DU, but under Florida law, Martin's family can not bring a civil suit against Zimmerman if he is found not guilty.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)burnodo
(2,017 posts)Exactly the point many have made since the incident took place
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)yardwork
(61,650 posts)Even if we figure that half the comments are paid astro-turfers, that's a hell of a lot of racism in this country. It has opened my eyes.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... but for all the world, it appears he didn't do much of that. The only wound he had on him was a small superficial scratch on a finger and the only GZ DNA on him was at the bottom (waistband) of his shirts, where GZ picked them up to see if he could find the wound. And adversely, we have NO effing idea what DNA was on GZ, because GZ wasn't taken to the hospital and given the once over for evidence on his body that belonged to Trayvon. This trial would be going allot different if ALL THE EVIDENCE HAD BEEN COLLECTED AND DOCUMENTED AT THE HOSPITAL. Not to mention what was in his blood stream.
Lithos
(26,403 posts)When you are obviously guilty of WWB (Walking While Black), you have no rights and should submit yourself immediately to any punkass who wants to prove their manhood.
L-
Hempologist
(13 posts)I'm not asserting that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman first, frankly I don't see how anyone other than Trayvon and Zimmerman can say with certainty one way or the other who attacked who first but the idea that we have a right to physically attack someone because they are walking behind us or even following us is ridiculous.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)people you stalk and provoke. Then you have the right to execute them immediately.
Hempologist
(13 posts)That much should be obvious. It's pretty unfortunate how everyone seems to have picked a side here when none of us knows what really went down. The only thing we do know for sure is that there was a physical altercation between Zimmerman and Trayvon and whether or not Zimmerman is guilty of murder should rest solely on the answer to the question of who attacked who first. To bad some of you are letting emotion and personal bias get in the way of logic and reason.
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)...for no damn good reason at all.
Zimmerman claimed he wanted to get house numbers where there was a house number plainly lit that night that he could've given the police without going down the walkway further.
Hempologist
(13 posts)If Zimmerman was afraid of TM he wouldn't of gotten out the car to chase him. Secondly, pursuing someone you think is suspicious and possibly committing a crime is not against the law. Thank god none of you are on the jury since it seems you are letting your bias influence you over the facts of the case. And for the record I'm not a Zimmerman supporter. If he attacked Trayvon first then he should be going to jail for a very long time. The state however has been unable to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Basically he killed a kid who was still holding his skittles in his hands while he was "supposedly" assaulting someone whose gun was under him and while nearly unconscious he was able to roll his body over to get the gun and shoot the kid.
The only people it made sense to are those who think young black males are dangerous, especially on sugar.
Zimmerman needs to go to jail.
Hempologist
(13 posts)I'm Chinese, Indian, and Jamaican. I've also experienced being followed around by people who thought I was up to no good simply because of the color of my skin, so I know what that feels like. So quit with the race baiting.
There was a physical confrontation between the two. That is not in dispute. If you could prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman initiated it then I'd be all on board with sending him to jail. But no one knows. Maybe Zimmerman caught up to Trayvon and grabbed him and Trayvon defended himself or maybe Trayvon got upset about being followed and attacked Zimmerman. Maybe is not a good enough reason to send someone to prison. It's innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)the moment he decided to get out of that care with a gun, he was the aggressor. he deserves to rot in prison.
Hempologist
(13 posts)Getting out of the car to follow Trayvon doesn't make Zimmerman guilty of anything.
Will any of you acknowledge that if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman that Zimmerman had a right to defend himself?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)zimmerman concocted that bullshit story because he knows where he lives. he knows every racist in america would believe his cock and bull story. but it just doesn't make a bit of sense. a kid walking home from the store attacks the creepy man following him?!?! why? because he predisposed to violence? it makes far more sense that the cop wannabee tried to detain martin. and since martin did not consider himself "suspicious" he tried to get away from the creep, perhaps he even tried to defend himself...not that zimmerman apologists would ever consider that possibility. and the creepy asshole shot and killed him. all avoidable, btw, if he had kept his stupid ass in the car and waited for the police. that bastard is guilty as hell, and i hope he rots in prison for a long, long time. perahaps he will grow a conscience about the life he took...for no reason. it wasn't "god's will" as he told hannity: it was cold-blooded murder.
Hempologist
(13 posts)I acknowledged the possibility of Zimmerman attacking Trayvon two posts ago, but why let reality interrupt your baseless rant? I have not bought into Zimmerman's stor, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt their version of events. Sorry if this upsets you and you think Zimmerman should be convicted based solely on what is your obvious bias.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)scary black guy archtype, and it does appeal to many existing racists in america. as to whether you are a racist, i have no idea. i know that many zimmerman defenders are in fact un apologetic racists. that's not "name-calling"...that's telling an unpleasant truth. and usually the ones who feign the most offense are the very same ones claiming martin was a "thug" and "got what he deserved." sorry if i mistook you for one of them, but frankly i could give a damn.
TeamPooka
(24,229 posts)IdaBriggs
(10,559 posts)Are you replying to someone else, because that is offensive as hell.
The reality is this: GUILTY OF KILLING A KID. The Zimmerman supporters have to twist and stretch reality to make it "justified" but Trayvon Martin was killed by George Zimmerman who was following him because he MISTAKENLY thought he was dangerous.
He thought Trayvon Martin was dangerous because he was a young black male, and Zimmerman confronted him, then killed him.
Your opinion on anything really doesn't matter anymore than mine does. I am hoping the jury puts him in jail.
Unless your next post contains an apology for your offensive "assumed you are white" racial comment, I will not be replying to it.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)"Was he, Martin, justified in standing his ground and defending himself when this stranger, an apparent stalker, approached him in a threatening manner? "
lumpy
(13,704 posts)n
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)pnwmom
(108,980 posts)and scream and fight back in every way possible.
Trayvon, who had just turned 17, felt that he was being stalked by a creep, and he reacted the way he had probably been taught.
sinkingfeeling
(51,460 posts)would allow their killers to cry, "Self defense". If a woman is walking down the street and being followed by a creepy looking guy and she turns and knees him in the groin, he has the right to shoot her. She was NOT, by any means, defending herself against a rapist!
Hempologist
(13 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)The poor sap is just going to have to deal with it.
Hempologist
(13 posts)That's how the law works.
sinkingfeeling
(51,460 posts)ctaylors6
(693 posts)I think he would not have the right to shoot her because she kneed him in the groin. The application of self-defense law in such a case of deadly force being used would require that the man reasonably believed that shooting her was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.
I personally would not think a man could reasonably believe that he needed to shoot a woman to protect himself in that situation. I would not want to be a defense lawyer for that guy.
And that's what the jury is deciding with Zimmerman, right? IF they believe that Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head on the ground, did Zimmerman reasonably believe that shooting Martin was necessary to prevent great bodily harm or death?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)let's turn your stupid game around back to you.
Hempologist
(13 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)so i won't bother discussing this any further.
Hempologist
(13 posts)and with deadly force if we feel our lives are in danger.
cigsandcoffee
(2,300 posts)It's not an either-or thing. If Martin was wrong, that doesn't mean Zimmerman was right, or vice-versa. If Zimmerman felt his life was in direct mortal danger, then he was justified to use lethal force - and it doesn't matter if Martin was acting out of the same sense of justified self-preservation in attacking Zimmerman (if that is what happened). That's the way these self-defense laws work.
John2
(2,730 posts)Zimmerman provoked it by following Martin in an intimidating manner. Martin tried to get away from him first, only for Zimmerman to find him again. It also depends on if you believe Zimmerman's loaded gun was in his holster or in plain view, for Martin to see. Then Martin has a right to knock him off balance. Just seeing the gun, makes Martin defending his life. But if you want to believe Zimmerman, his loaded gun was in his holster, and he didn't remember it until Trayvon went for it, after telling him, you are going to die tonight. Zimmerman is full of shit.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)from the boy with the Skittles and the can of pop.
He chased Martin around the complex with a loaded gun because he wanted to! I hope they find him guilty of manslaughter.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)he was stalking the neighborhood with a loaded gun looking for "suspects" but he was not a cop, nor was he acting as a neighorhood watch person. so, he was basically an armed vigilante looking for trouble. unfortunately, martin came across his path and zimmerman got of the car...for what reason, i don't know, but i bet he sure as hell does. i believe he pursued and attacked martin, and as the boy struggled to get away from him, screaming for help, the coward pulled out a gun and killed him. i doubt it had anything at all to do with fear, but perhaps martin was besting him in a confrontation zimmerman initiated.
neohippie
(1,142 posts)The prosecution needs to use the defense against itself, all of this talk about Zimmerman being afraid for his life is BS
If Trayvon Martin were on trial for self defense, would being stalked by a creepy guy who at first followed you in a car, then later on foot and ran after you when you tried to get away from danger, wouldn't his fear of imminent danger, if he felt like he was about to be the victim of great bodily harm, isn't that exactly the same right to self defense as what Zimmerman is claiming?
Because if Martin was afraid didn't he turn out to be justly afraid, he was indeed being stalked by a guy who never identified himself, who was armed and did just what Martin could have been afraid of, he took his life, he was a creepy cracker with a gun and a grudge
How can you only see one side of self defense how can one side be more justified than the other, don't we teach our people, especially kids to run away from strangers, stranger danger, flee
Zimmerman on the other hand, calmly pursued his suspect, knowing all the while he had a gun, and was a trained MMA fighter ,and a wanna-be cop, Martin should have been afraid for his life and had every right to fight for his life as well
Who sounds like a cold blooded killer the guy with the gun who calmly gets out of his car, and keeps pursuing or the kid who is afraid and running away, isn't running away the sign of fear here why don't people think about that simple choice, the kid who was scared and ran to get away and the guy who is cold as steel determined not to let his prey get away, who stalked that boy like a terminator robot just a calculated as a killer
I think that its just as possible that all this self defense talk could work against Zimmerman, The prosecutor in his closing rebuttal needs to make that point strongly, think about Zimmerman and his fear, magnify that by putting that fear inside of a boy who was just trying to get home from the store but thinks he's being stalked by some predator, hes followed in a car, and according to Martin's father, the police told him that Martin had once approached Zimmerman in while he was in the car and asked him if he was following him, and Zimmerman denied it,
see reference to this in this news story http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/tracy-martin-recounts-police-version-of-son-trayvons-death/2012/03/28/gIQA6MKhhS_story.html
According to Tracy Martin, the Sanford, Fla., detective recounted this sequence of events: Trayvon Martin walked up to Zimmerman’s vehicle and asked why he was following him. Zimmerman denied following the youth and rolled up the car window. Minutes after Trayvon walked away, Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.
I know that this is what Martin's father recounted to the press when he was first told by the police what had happened to his son, if that is true then Zimmerman had a chance right then to peacefully confront Martin and Identify himself, also if that happened it wasn't on the 911 call, so that proves that Zimmerman had left that out when talking to the police that he had already had an interaction with Martin.
I don't understand why some of these points were never brought up by the prosecution. They really should have played every interview that Zimmerman made with the police to the jury because its the best way to demonstrate the holes in Zimmermans version of events.
Martin was a scared kid, it might be impossible for the defense to get that out of the minds of the jury, who was more scared, the adult trained in who charges out of his car armed ready to make sure that nobody gets away this time, or the kid who has tried to ask the creepy guy if he was following him, has tried to run away from the danger he sensed, and then get's chased down, If the jury believes that Martin feared for his life wouldn't any action that he took be just as justified as what the defense claims should be awarded to their client?
__________________
One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)Stalking is an act of aggression.
Trayvon Martin thought (well founded) that he was being stalked by a creepy guy.
If I were being followed through a neighborhood at night, I would feel very very threatened. ..and if that someone tried to grab me, I'd hit, bite, and kick, and he might shoot me.
But he'd be immediately arrested for murder, and certainly convicted of same, because I am a white lady, (even though I do wear a hoody if its chilly when I'm strolling.)
zeeland
(247 posts)one of the Casey Anthony attorneys that has a clue about GZ's trial,
is predicting a short deliberation and a very good chance of a manslaughter
conviction.
Given the OP's astute observation of one of the many missing components
in the States case this was surprising but hopeful for me to hear.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)It all comes down to race. That is the elephant in the room.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)The big issue is we dont know what really happened and a lot of have strong opinions that aren't based on facts, even to the point of making up laws where none exist. As a poster upthread noted...no laws appear to have been broken until the altercation. And we don't know what happened. Both travon and martin have a history of violence which probably doomed the situation.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)That's alright. Plenty of wrong people on DU.
If Travon would have been white Zimmerman wouldn't have aggressively pursued him.
Niceguy1
(2,467 posts)Know the answer to that....but as far as prosecution and and or possible lack of convictions go race isn't a factor.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Zimmerman, who was raised by the Peruvian mother who bragged about being a racist?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)are not vey bright
Vanje
(9,766 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)trayvon martin was the victim, and the only "history of violence" he had is some texts and facebook posts. and since wingnuts and racists keep bringing this up, i doubt that it is true. like the phony pictures that surfaced of "gangster trayvon" that turned out to be another person. the smear campaign against this boy has been ugly, sickening and racist to the core. on the other hand, zimmerman really does have a history of violence that is verifiable, not just some claims from random internet posters.
Vanje
(9,766 posts)I suspect you are talking to a troll.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)prosecuter brought this up?
Myrina
(12,296 posts).... it came from Zimmy trying to be Dirty Harry to this probably scared-shitless teenager, rather than vice versa.
But Zimmy needed to reverse that statement otherwise the Prosecution could have pinned Murder 1 on him, if anyone else had heard it.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)being the issue.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)zimmrman's bullshit story has been regurgitated without analysis.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)huge amount of sarcasm here
usaf-vet
(6,189 posts).. oh lets see U.S Navy Seal home on leave. What if he had confronted that individual with or without a gun. If the Seal stood his ground and Zimmerman ended up dead. What would the charges have been. If any?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)there is clearly a different standard for black people who are suspects vs. light-skinned latinos whose daddies have pull with the police who are suspects 
secondvariety
(1,245 posts)that without his shootin' iron, Zimmerman wouldn't have said shit to Martin. Sooo many of the pistol packing blowhards have the fortitude of fainting goats when not armed.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)The underlying assumption of the "stand your ground" law is about using a gun.
LukeFL
(594 posts)Discussed at my office. How come no one has bright up trayvon's right to feel threat eded by being followed by a stranger.
TBF
(32,067 posts)Zimmerman had no business getting out of his vehicle and shooting an unarmed man.
Response to pnwmom (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)1) Trayvon was walking home, unarmed, from a convenience store.
2) He was confronted by an armed stranger, NOT the other way around.
3) Armed stranger is alive, unarmed Trayvon is dead.
This trial has NOTHING to do with racism. It has to do with the judgment of the defendant, who, by self-admission, shot an unarmed person and killed him after the defendant PERSUED and CONFRONTED him.
Next?
neohippie
(1,142 posts)There is evidence of an assualt, Trayvon's friend Jenteal, testified,that she was on the phone with Martin, and she heard Martin talk to Zimmerman, and then she heard a sound like wrestling in the grass and heard Trayvon say get off, get off, that sounds a lot like an assault to me.
Also, Martin tried once to speak to Zimmerman while he was in his car, and even asked him if he was following him, Zimmerman failed to use that opportunity to difuse the situation, instead he chose to lie to Martin and tell him no and then roll up his window.
This is what the police told Martin's father the next day when they recounted Zimmerman's version of events to him while telling him his son had been killed.
Zimmerman, has changed his story so many times, that it appears very evident to anyone who listened to all of his versions that he has something to hide and is clearly making statements out of self preservation instead of being truthful
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts) uponit7771
(90,347 posts)...the law states the "repeated" part doesn't have a time span.
What's a shame is that it wasn't brought up by the prosceuation
onenote
(42,714 posts)Under Florida law, stalking requires someone to willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follow or harass someone. Repeated means more than once. While there is no particular period of time that is required for a course of conduct to constitute harassment, there still has to be more than one instance of harassment (i.e., it has to be repeated). Also, under Florida law, stalking is a misdemenor unless it also can be proven that the stalker also madea credible threat against the target with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury .
onenote
(42,714 posts)under a narrowly defined set of circumstances.
More specifically, Trayvon had the right to walk down the sidewalk. As strange as it may sound, Zimmerman had the right to follow Trayvon and even the right to confront him and demand an explanation from Trayvon as to his conduct. That is not illegal in Florida.
At that point, Travyon would have the following options: (1) respond to Zimmerman orally in any non-threatening fashion he wanted (i.e., answer the questions, tell Zimmerman to go to hell, etc); (2) he could physically confront Zimmerman (i.e.) use non-deadly force against him (throw a punch, spray him with mace, etc). However, if he chose option two, he would have faced prosecution because he did not have the right to "stand his ground" in those circumstances; he also would be giving Zimmerman grounds for a self defense claim if Zimmerman responded to Trayvon's use of force with force of his own. That's because under Florida law, "a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is attacked...where he or she has the right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force". The operative conditions here are that a person claiming the right to stand his or her ground must have been attacked and not merely confronted. In other words, under Florida law, it would appear that Trayvon had a duty to retreat rather than "stand his ground" when he was confronted by Zimmerman unless Zimmerman used force against Trayvon first. (If Zimmerman threatened the use of force rather than actually used it, Zimmerman would not be able to claim self-defense because he would be deemed to have provoked the confrontation).
And before anyone starts accusing me of being a Zimmerman apologist, my belief is that Zimmerman's lack of credibility should result in the jury finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was not entitled to claim self-defense.
libodem
(19,288 posts)A Concealed Carry equals a licence to kill. Almost anyone can qualify.
[img]
[/img]
Response to onenote (Reply #160)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)
onenote
(42,714 posts)To the extent that requires them to put forward evidence that calls into question Zimmerman's credibility, then you are correct.
Response to onenote (Reply #174)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uponit7771
(90,347 posts)klook
(12,157 posts)
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)And it irritates me that this wasn't stressed by the prosecution.
"If Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car and followed/stalked Trayvon Martin, would Trayvon Martin still be alive? If the answer is 'yes.' Then you need to return a verdict of guilty of murder."
onenote
(42,714 posts)That's because it wasn't unlawful for Zimmerman to follow Martin or even for him to confront him and demand an explanation of what he was doing and why. Stalking in Florida requires repeated behavior and provocation (which negates self-defense) requires an actual use of force or threatened use of force.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)... disobeying the operator and hunting down Martin. What Martin did, from any reasonable thought on this, was defend himself from someone he regarded as endangering his life.
Again, if Zimmerman had obeyed the operator, would Martin be alive? If the answer is yes, then Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin.
onenote
(42,714 posts)But that is irrelevant as a matter of law. The question you propose be asked would result in the reversal of any conviction that followed.
I'm in no way defending either Zimmerman or the law. But wishing the law was other than it is won't change it.
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)And I appreciate our exchange.
I'm not saying that the judge provide the instruction. I'm saying that the prosecution should have stressed this very relevant and important factor of the case.
The whole fight fiasco happened as a result of whom? Would a fight have occurred if Zimmerman followed instructions? Would a fight have occurred if Trayvon Martin was allowed to go home as was his intention?
A fight occurred because of what? Zimmerman decided to disregard specific instructions and stalk Martin. As a result, a fight ensued. As a result, a person is dead. The person who is dead was minding his own business. The person who is alive, and had a lethal weapon, was not minding his own business.
The instigation of the fight starts the moment Zimmerman made the decision to disobey instructions and stalk Martin, who is dead as a result.
This is murder.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)as the defense asked her to.
Now it is up to the jury to decide IF Trayvon threw the first punch and IF Zimmerman provoked him -- which would take away Z.'s claim of self-defense.
onenote
(42,714 posts)But the law on provocation is pretty clear. It requires an act of force or a threatened act of force. Following someone and even confronting them with a demand that they explain their conduct has been held not to constitute provocation sufficient to negate a claim of self defense.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)Wouldn't SHE have felt threatened?
According to Rachel, he was afraid that a "creep" was after him. I think he was provoked -- if he indeed threw the first punch -- but it will be up to the jury to decide.
Skittles
(153,169 posts)Trayvon had NO IDEA why Zimmerman did that and so he feared for his life - Zimmerman is a gutless coward and a lying piece of SHIT
it's because the jury is the trier of fact, not the judge. The jury decides the facts, and the judge decides the law. For the judge to take the case away from the jury, the facts would have to be so one-sided that the judge would be saying that there's no way a jury could find the other way.
As a practical matter, I can't see a judge dismissing this case before a trial. Now that all the evidence has been presented, even if a judge thought she should grant a judgment of acquittal, there's simply no upside to doing it before the jury reaches a verdict.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)"If Zimmerman WOULD HAVE STAYED in the car, Trayvon WOULD BE alive today."
Thank you.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)What Zimmerman did, aggressively following Trayvon, armed with his gun, and -- without identifying himself -- confronting him, was a provocation.
onenote
(42,714 posts)According to one of the leading treatises on criminal law, Wharton's Criminal Law, examples of provocation that would result in a loss of the self-defense claim innclude
Assaulting the victim
Unlawfully arresting the victim
Firing the first shot at the victim.
Insufficient provocation, according to this treatise, includes
Demanding an explanation of offensive words or conduct;
Hurling inappropriate language and insulting epithets
Creating an opportunity for conflict without causing it
Provides an opportunity for conflict, but does not cause it;
Failing to perform a contemporaneous act manifesting a subjective intent to cause the conflict, even if one arms oneself with the intent to create a conflict.
In Florida, there is at least one case in which the failure to specify that the provocation had to be by force or threat of force was held to be reversible error.
It is highly unlikely, imo, that the state could prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman engaged in an actionable act of provocation that would negate his claim of self-defense. Which may explain why the prosecution hasn't really tried that tactic.
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)And the judge hasn't dismissed the charges, so she's keeping the door open to a conviction.
onenote
(42,714 posts)Does that mean a juror won't be influenced by whether they think Zimmerman "started it"? Of course not. But my point was that it would be reversible error to tell the jury that if they think Zimmerman started it they should find him guilty. The judge apparently agreed and, indeed, didn't feel the evidence adduced at trial warranted raising the provocation exception at all.
ctaylors6
(693 posts)the jury on the law that applies. The jurors are supposed to decide issues of fact, NOT issues of law. But the instructions are based on the law - statutory as well as case law - so the juries are indirectly relying on case law. The jury must apply the facts it decides to the law as stated in the jury instructions when the jury is reaching its verdict. In other words, the jury does not have to figure out any law - it's provided to them - but they definitely are using the applicable laws when they reach their verdict.
As far as inferring anything from lack of dismissal here, I cannot imagine there's a judge who would grant a judgment of acquittal for the defendant at this point in trial even if the facts seemed very much in favor of the defendant. The state generally cannot appeal an acquittal by jury, but it can usually (unless FL is wonky) appeal a judgment of acquittal by the judge made before or after the jury reaches a verdict. If the judge really thought she should grant such a judgment, she'd wait until after the jury verdict. So I'd read nothing into the judge not dismissing at this point.
AmyStrange
(7,989 posts)-
If you're growing a couple plants (ya know, for the head), cleaning Betsy, and all of a sudden the DEA bust in, and before you realize it, you mow them all down with Betsy? Does SYG allow you to do this?
d
-
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)Martin had the perfect right to be where he was.
Wikipedia mentions that some U.S. states have laws allowing pre-emptive self defense in a situation where there was imminent threat of violence and no chance for retreat or de-escalation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense#Legal_status_of_self-defense
If Martin felt there was a man intent on violence stalking him, he probably had the legal right to strike first, particularly since Zimmerman was not retreating.
onenote
(42,714 posts)exactly what transpired. We know the result. But the very fact that we are left to speculate as to what happened may (and I stress "may" not "must"
create reasonable doubt in the jury's mind as to whether the state has negated Zimmerman's self-defense claim. The burden, as has been pointed out frequently, and as the charge to the jury makes clear, is on the state not the defense.
neohippie
(1,142 posts)We know how Martin felt, he was aware he was being followed by a creepy guy. Apparently he had gone up to Zimmerman's car, and asked him point blank if he was following him, to which Zimmy replied no, and rolled up his window, then after that continued to follow him. Martin's response was to then run, he discussed this with his friend on the phone who also told him to run, he was scared, he fled the situation, this demonstrates, fear. Zimmerman on the other hand, calmly talks to the police, calmly and willingly gets out of his vehicle with a flashlight and a gun and goes looking for trouble, who in this situation would you believe has reasonable fear for their life the kid who doesn't know why the creepy guy is following him, or the guy with the gun who wants to make sure that nobody gets away this time
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)through either his fists or by grabbing the gun, he would have.
In states that have less restrictive gun laws, it is anticipated that two persons might indeed get into a gunfight, or even a fistfight that could produce death. The "winner" is presumed to be legally off the hook as far as the law goes in one of those places. In other states, whoever wins the fight is considered the aggressor and always must be punished for winning, unless other special circumstances prevail.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)Zimmerman would probably have continued to be off the hook if Travon had been any other black kid out of place in the neighborhood. Food for thought.
glinda
(14,807 posts)to walk this Country and not fear for our lives. There is a case coming up in MN. which interestingly was postponed (due to waiting the outcome of the the Zimmerman case) where this case will be used in regards to the Castle Doctrine. The deceased are white young people.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)
I guess he was supposed to get on his knees and wait for Zimmerman to shoot him? There was no logical or rational reason for Zimmerman to shoot him. Which tells me Zimmerman was irrational at the time of the shooting.
chelsea0011
(10,115 posts)person throws a punch from one person to the next.